enquiry into the historical origins of a particular religion;
finding out which is the most appropriate or beneficial spiritual practice.
These two enquiries can be either completely independent or completely interdependent. Thus, to check out zazen, I do not need to study the life of the Buddha. It is sufficient to receive some personal instruction, then to sit facing a wall. By contrast, before I can practice Christianity, I must believe it and, to do that, I must first assent to certain historical claims.
Adzel meditates.
Axor says:
"'If science can show that the gospel account of Christ is not myth but biography; and if it then finds that his ministry was, in empirical fact, universal -'"
-Poul Anderson, The Game Of Empire IN Anderson, Flandry's Legacy (Riverside, NY, June 2012), pp. 189-453 AT CHAPTER ONE, p. 210.
Empirical fact would not be faith. There are two "if"'s there, so I am not sure how far Axor has got in his quest. He has not confirmed the Universal Incarnation yet. How certain is he of scientific verification of "...not myth but biography..."? Surely the Gospels contain elements of both? The practical conclusion of his two "if"'s is that (he thinks that) Diana Crowfeather might decide that it was reasonable to accept Christ as her Saviour. I do not think that we decide matters of reason. We either find that something is reasonable or we do not. Meanwhile, we can, in any case, meditate at any time and in any place, whatever our beliefs.
Earlier in the Technic History, Yakow Harolsson, High Commander of the Companions of the Arena on Aeneas, makes the following points in conversation with Ivar Frederiksen, future Firstman of Ilion:
religion means faith in the supernatural;
most Aeneans are monotheists and therefore observe various ceremonies and injunctions;
the more sophisticated acknowledge that their faith is not scientific, i.e., is subject neither to empirical confirmation nor to disconfirmation;
divine intervention might cause miracles which, however, involve suspension of natural law and therefore are not experimentally repeatable;
an event might have happened but be scientifically explicable, e.g., if Jesus Christ existed and reemerged from a tomb, he might have been in a coma;
if a saint did not exist, the creed associated with him might nevertheless be valid.
(Even if the Buddha did not exist, meditation still works.)
One further observation: both Jesus and the Buddha lived. We share with them the task of understanding and responding to reality.
(It is great and unusual to have all this in sf texts.)
5 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Except events I believe to be of supernatural origin has been empirically reported, observed, and studied by scientists over the past 150 years at Lourdes. The miracles recorded there as having no known natural/scientific explanation have never gotten a convincing non-supernatural explanation.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The nature of science is that there is always more to explain and scientists keep trying to explain it but no one is obliged to come up with "a convincing non-supernatural explanation." Much remains unexplained and we do not know what will be discovered in future. There was a yogi who, it was claimed, did not eat. I do not know enough about that to explain it, including whether the claim was true or false.
If we disagree with monotheism on philosophical grounds and with the Resurrection on historical grounds, then we cannot appeal to Christianity to explain miraculous cures but we cannot explain everything anyway. Scientists continue to observe and enquire.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, the point being that what happens at Lourdes challenges your preferred POV. Your appeal to what might be discovered in the future is not convincing. I did not mention Lourdes to prove Christianity, it was to show the inadequacy of mere materialism.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Yes.
Nonsense. Lourdes does not challenge my preferred POV. I do not have a "preferred POV" unless maybe in the same sense as everyone has one, including obviously you. This phrase, "preferred POV," is used to imply that someone else holds to a prejudice and refuses to budge from it. Nonsense. My views have changed and are currently changing as I learn more now.
My POV is that reality is infinite, knowledge is growing but finite and there are always phenomena that we do not understand yet. Lourdes fits perfectly with that. I do not appeal to what might be discovered in future! I do know that, if we do not destroy ourselves, a great deal more will be learned in the future. I do not know what it will be. My "appeal" is not convincing? I am not trying to convince you of anything. I have learned that that is impossible.
Lourdes does not show the inadequacy of mere (?) materialism. You clearly do not understand materialism. I have explained it several times. It is the philosophical view that consciousness is not ontologically primary. Dynamic being/reality/"matter"/energy has become conscious of itself through psychophysical organisms. Being (the most abstract term for the single reality) undergoes qualitative transformations including crucially the transformation from unconsciousness to consciousness, then to successive levels of consciousness. Lourdes does not show that this view is inadequate.
When someone holds and defends a view, it sounds as if he "prefers" it but that does not mean an inability to change views. I have changed my views totally.
We are always on a battleground here instead of just having a discussion. You are holding onto a preferred POV.
Paul.
Sean,
You cling to a preferred POV by accusing those who disagree with you of doing precisely that! Can we just discuss reasons for or against particular propositions without implicitly accusing others of intellectual dishonesty?
Paul.
Post a Comment